The Allegory of the Cave

1. Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, etc., without (so far
as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of Forms.
2. The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.
3. In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the Theory of Forms to prisoners chained
in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them
burns a fire.

Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which

puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that
cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the
real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and
echoes cast by objects that they do not see. Here is an illustration of Platos Cave:
4. Such prisoners would mistake appearance for reality. They would think the things they see
on the wall (the shadows) were real; they would know nothing of the real causes of the
shadows.
5. So when the prisoners talk, what are they talking about? If an object (a book, let us say) is
carried past behind them, and it casts a shadow on the wall, and a prisoner says I see a
book, what is he talking about?
He thinks he is talking about a book, but he is really talking about a shadow. But he uses
the word book. What does that refer to?
6. Plato gives his answer at line (515b2). The text here has puzzled many editors, and it has
been frequently emended. The translation in Grube/Reeve gets the point correctly:
And if they could talk to one another, dont you think theyd suppose that the names they
used applied to the things they see passing before them?
7. Platos point is that the prisoners would be mistaken. For they would be taking the terms in
their language to refer to the shadows that pass before their eyes, rather than (as is
correct, in Platos view) to the real things that cast the shadows.
If a prisoner says Thats a book he thinks that the word book refers to the very thing
he is looking at. But he would be wrong. Hes only looking at a shadow. The real referent of
the word book he cannot see. To see it, he would have to turn his head around.
8. Platos point: the general terms of our language are not names of the physical objects
that we can see. They are actually names of things that we cannot see, things that we can
only grasp with the mind.
9. When the prisoners are released, they can turn their heads and see the real objects. Then
they realize their error. What can we do that is analogous to turning our heads and seeing
the causes of the shadows? We can come to grasp the Forms with our minds.
10.Platos aim in the Republic is to describe what is necessary for us to achieve this reflective
understanding. But even without it, it remains true that our very ability to think and to
speak depends on the Forms. For the terms of the language we use get their meaning by
naming the Forms that the objects we perceive participate in.
11.The prisoners may learn what a book is by their experience with shadows of books. But
they would be mistaken if they thought that the word book refers to something that any
of them has ever seen.
Souce:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Likewise, we may acquire concepts by our perceptual experience of physical objects. But
we would be mistaken if we thought that the concepts that we grasp were on the same
level as the things we perceive.

Souce:
https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm